Cognitive scientist: Using the pioneering work of comparative psycholo

Let's start by breaking down the passage:

• Conclusion: That "the implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species."
• Supporting Evidence #1: "Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior."
• Supporting evidence #2: In the case of great apes "repeated exposure to a mirror leads to self-directed behaviors... suggesting these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self."

Overall, the argument is based on certain studies, which themselves took Gallup's work as a model. Since these studies suggest that great apes are unique in their capacity for MSR, the argument concludes that great apes are unique in their capacity for self-awareness.

Here's choice (A):

The conclusion is based on studies which used Gallup's work as a model. However, the conclusion is not directly based on Gallup's research itself, so we don't need to make any assumptions about what Gallup's work has or has not established.

Eliminate (A).

The argument concludes that "the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species." It supports this statement with the fact that great apes show MSR. But how do we know their capacity for self-awareness is unique?

Well, the argument suggests that other animals lack self-awareness because they lack MSR. For this logic to hold, we need to assume that if an animal doesn't have the capacity for MSR, it doesn't have the capacity for self-awareness. In other words, we need to assume what answer choice (B) says. If that weren't assumed, and animals could have self-awareness without MSR, we couldn't conclude that great apes alone have the capacity for self-awareness.

Since (B) is necessary for the argument to succeed, it's an assumption made by the argument. Hold on to (B).

The argument assumes that if an animal lacks MSR, it lacks self-awareness. But it does NOT assume that just because an animal exhibits social behavior it lacks self-awareness. Maybe some animals exhibits social behavior and MSR? If that were the case, an animal could display both social behavior and self-awareness, according to the premises of the passage.

Since (C) is not assumed by the argument, we can eliminate it.

Do we need to assume this? Not really. Even if some animals displayed neither social behavior nor self-directed behavior, that wouldn't damage the idea that the great apes are unique in their capacity for MSR, and that this implies they are unique in their capacity for self-awareness.

Eliminate (D).

If this were true, it would actually weaken the argument. The cognitive scientist assumes that if an animal does not exhibit MSR, it lacks the capacity for self-awareness. So if animals could fail to exhibit MSR, but still demonstrate a capacity for self-awareness, the argument that great apes are "unique" in their capacity for self-awareness would be damaged.

Since (E) weakens the argument, it's definitely not an assumption. Eliminate (E).

That's leaves us with (B), the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

This is an Assumption question, so we should probably use the negation test on these answer choices.

Breakdown of the argument:

1. Most animals exposed to a mirror respond with social behavior.
2. However, with apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors.
- Which suggests that they recognize themselves in the mirror.
3. Conclusion: This implies that apes have capacity for self-awareness and other animals do not have the capacity for self awareness.

Bunuel

(B) If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.

(B) If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.

Using the negation test, this completely wrecks the argument. If an animal DOES have the capacity for MSR, it HAS to have the capacity for self-awareness.

Great choice. Hold.

Bunuel

(C) If a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behavior, that animal is incapable of being self-aware.

(C) If a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behavior, that animal is not incapable of being self-aware.

"not incapable", double negative... let's switch that to "capable"

(C) If a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behavior, that animal is capable of being self-aware.

Using the negation test, this hurts the argument for sure, but remember that one nuance in the passage that seemed out of place? It said that repeated exposure to mirrors led apes to have self-directed behavior.

So it's reasonable to believe that maybe apes exhibited social behavior the first time they were exposed to a mirror, but after repeated exposure, they started to recognize themselves. Therefore, the negation test does not completely wreck the argument.

Eliminate.

I hope this makes sense and explains why (B) is better than (C)... It's a tough answer choice, but that is why it is a 700 level question.

Bunuel

(D) When exposed to a mirror, all animals display either social behavior or self-directed behavior.

This is out of scope. The passage says most animals respond with social behavior, however apes can have self-directed behavior. It never explicitly says that all animals have social or self-directed behavior.

Eliminate.

VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh
What do you think of my way of selecting option B and discarding option C ?
Please let me know whether it's correct or not....

Posted from my mobile device

I am not too sure of your negated (C) logic.

Negated (C): If a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behavior, that animal is capable of being self-aware.

In case of Great Apes, they exhibit MSR after repeated exposure so it is possible that they exhibit social behaviour early on. In case of other animals, since the animals exhibit social behaviour (perhaps on repeated exposure too), we are implying that they are not capable of being self aware.
Hence, "if a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behaviour" has NO implication. It may or may not be self aware depending on what it does on repeated exposure. We are not assuming (C) in our argument. Our argument depends on repeated exposure to the mirror.
Hence negated (C) does not break our argument.

I chose B correctly but has a doubt about it: the argument basically said if animals has MSR, they have capability for self-awareness. B is the negation of it: if animals has no MSR, they don't have capability for self-awareness. Wouldn't it be a "Negation Mistake" from the standpoint of conditional reasoning check?

The argument also assumed that if animals do not show MSR, then they are not self aware. The conclusion says that ONLY great apes are self aware because other animals did not show MSR. So the argument is assuming that if an animal shows MSR, it is self aware and if an animal does not show MSR, it is not self aware.

Passage Analysis

•Cognitive scientist: Using the pioneering work of comparative psychologist Gordon Gallup as a model, several studies have investigated animals' capacity for mirror self-recognition (MSR).

o The cognitive scientist states that several studies have pondered upon animals’ capability for mirror self-recognition (MSR).
o The research used as a model for these studies is the pioneering work by comparative psychologist Gordon Gallup.

•Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior, such as aggression.

o Majority of the animals when showed a mirror respond with social behaviour
o An example of such social behaviour is aggression.

• However, in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth,

o In contrast to this general trend, the great apes exhibit self-directed behaviours like exploring the inside of the mouth when provided with repeated exposure to mirrors.

•suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self.

o Such self-directed behaviour from the great apes indicate that they are able to identify that the mirror image is their own reflection.

•The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species.

o These studies imply that the great apes also have the capacity to be self-aware.
o Only humans were known to have a capacity for self-awareness.

Conclusion: The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species.

Pre-thinking

Question Stem Analysis

Here we need to identify the assumptions made by the author, the cognitive scientist, to reach the conclusion.

Falsification Question

In what scenario is it possible that the great apes do not have a capacity for self-awareness which is unique among nonhuman species?
Given that

•Most other animals respond to mirrors with social behaviour.
•The great apes respond with self-directed behaviours when they get repeated exposure to mirrors.

Thought Process

The author uses the studies based on Gordon Gallup’s work to show that the great apes have the capacity for mirror self-recognition, unlike other animals. This is the reason for considering them to have self-awareness. Here a link between MSR and self-awareness is assumed by the author. Factors related to the exposure required by animals to exhibit self-directed behaviour, and the accuracy of using Gallup’s model to investigate MSR are also assumed.

Falsification condition#1
What if the capability for MSR does not necessarily mean the animal has self-awareness? In that case the premises remain intact, but the conclusion breaks down.
Assumption#1
Any animal that has the ability for mirror self-recognition has the capacity to be self-aware.

Falsification condition#2
What if some animals could express self-awareness only in ways other than MSR? If that is the case, at least some animals that are understood to be not capable of self-awareness from MSR-based studies may be capable of self-awareness in a different way. In that scenario, the great apes will not be unique anymore. This will break down the conclusion.
Assumption#2
Every animal that has the capability to be self-aware has the ability to self-recognise in a mirror.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) Gallup's work has established that the great apes have a capacity for MSR unique among nonhuman species.
INCORRECT
The studies that established that the great apes have a capacity for MSR used Gallup’s work as a model. The passage does not say that Gallup did those studies himself. Hence this statement is against the facts presented in the passage and unnecessary for the conclusion to hold. Therefore, it is not the correct answer.

(B) If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.
CORRECT
This statement is in line with our pre-thinking assumption 2 and hence forms the correct answer.

(C) If a researcher exposes an animal to a mirror and that animal exhibits social behavior, that animal is incapable of being self-aware.
INCORRECT
This is not necessarily true, as we can see that it took repeated exposure for the great apes to recognize the mirror image as their own. It may be the case that initially the great apes responded to mirrors with social behaviour but later shifted to self-directed behaviour. This statement rejects that possibility. Hence, this cannot be the correct answer.

(D) When exposed to a mirror, all animals display either social behavior or self-directed behavior.
INCORRECT
This is not a pre-requisite for the cognitive scientist’s argument to hold. There may be animals which disregard the mirror, but this will not break down the conclusion. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.

(E) Animals that do not exhibit MSR may demonstrate a capacity for self-awareness in other ways.
INCORRECT
This statement is against the conclusion and is in line with falsification condition 2. Therefore, this cannot be the correct answer.

Hi VeritasKarishma,

Could you please help explain what's wrong with my analysis for (D) as follows?

If we negate (D), we get "When exposed to a mirror, there are animals displaying other behaviors than social behavior or self-directed behavior." So those other animals may have the capacity of self-awareness. Hence, the great apes aren't unique.

Thanks a lot!

The quantifier is negated.

(D) When exposed to a mirror, all animals display either social behavior or self-directed behavior.

Negated D) When exposed to a mirror, not all animals display either social behavior or self-directed behavior.

So some animals could display some other kind of behaviour too. Well that's ok. We are linking only self directed behaviour to self awareness in our conclusion. For that we need to assume that only those who show self directed behaviour are self aware.

VeritasKarishma,
Pls help me with my below query -

The negation technique helps to find the right assumption by attacking the conclusion.
Option B says - B. If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.

If I do negation of this i.e. contrapositive will be - if it has the capacity for self-awareness, an animal has the capacity for MSR.

but, you have mentioned that negation of B is - If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does have the capacity for self-awareness.

I want to understand which process should I follow: the one I mentioned or the one you mentioned. If I have to follow the one you mentioned, how do we arrive at that logical negation statement? Pls, help with this as I am struggling a little in this area and have done a lot of research on necessary and sufficient conditions but I am still getting stuck at some or other places.

Thanks in advance!
Anshul P

panshul22, unraveled

To negate, when you have a conditional and a main clause, the main clause is negated.

B. If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.

Negated B. If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does have the capacity for self-awareness.

The conditional stays the same (the if statement). The main clause gets negated (the then clause).

Hi VeritasKarishma

While I don't have any doubt regarding the answer, I have a question regarding the usage of the negation technique in conditional statements. If a statement is given as "IF A then B", wouldn't the negation be "IF not B then Not A" ?

No. The negation negates the main clause only. The condition remains the same.

For example, "if A happens, then B will happen."
I negate it by saying, "No, if A happens, then B may not happen."

For example, I say:
"If it continues to rain for another hour, the city will flood."

How will you oppose me? By saying:
"No, the city has improved its drainage. Even if it continues for another hour, it will still not flood."

I am giving a conclusion which is under certain conditions. You need to negate it under those same conditions.

I have a question specific to negating techniques. I usually am not able to properly negate an answer choice because I find that an answer can be negated in several different ways. For example, there are 2 "nots" in the answer choice B. I use one negation technique and it does not completely break down the argument. But someone else negates the same answer in a different way and finds the answer. I am really struggling in this process. Would be really grateful if someone could advise me and others with similar issue.

There is only one correct way of negating a statement. Think of negation as finding the complement. Think of the universal set - all possibilities.
The statement will consider some of those possibilities and leave out the others. The complement set would be the set of all other possibilities.

Ex 1. A will happen.

The possibilities are that A will happen or A will not happen.

So negation is "A will not happen."


Ex 2. If A happens, B will happen.

What is the universal set if A happens? It is that either B will happen or B will not happen.

So negation is "If A happens, B will not happen."

Ex 3. Some of us will visit.

"Some" means "at least 1". So some will visit means 1 or 2 or ... all of us will visit.
What is the only other possibility left? That none will visit.

So negation is "None of us will visit."

Also check on:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2016/0 ... ions-gmat/

VeritasKarishma Bunuel - I have a doubt about choice E. If E were rephrased as

"Animals that do not exhibit MSR may not demonstrate a capacity of self awareness in other ways"

Would this version of choice be correct?

- Fatima

The negation of 'may' is not 'may not'. 'May' implies 'may not' too. It is a probability. If there is a probability of something happening, there is a probability of something not happening.
The assumption is that animals that do not exhibit MSR do not have capacity for self awareness (in any way).